Anti-vaxxers

GreeBo

kylith wrote: »

I've said many times that vaccines are victims of their own success. Our parents and grandparents would have seen their peers become disabled or die due to these diseases, so they made sure that their children were vaccinated. Those children now have no idea of the reality of diseases like mumps or rubella so they have the impression that the tiny risk of a reaction to the vaccine is worse than the reality of measles.

I think to a lot of people MMR are equivalent to chicken pox and the associated pox parties that pothole used to have.
Cpox can also be a deadly virus to contract but its thought of as similar to the common cold by many it seems.

GreeBo

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It's not the reality for the unlucky person who falls in the 0.1% reaction category though.

That's like playing Russian roulette with millions of strangers instead of with 1 person you know and then acting confused when many people die

Bitches Be Trypsin

Brian? wrote: »

So we don’t vaccinate based on this ?

It's why I personally refuse any further vaccination. My life has been dramatically altered due to a vaccination, I would rather take my chances. And if I die, so be it!

BAM! uhavechlamydia

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It's why I personally refuse any further vaccination. My life has been dramatically altered due to a vaccination, I would rather take my chances. And if I die, so be it!

It's more about you being an infectious risk to others

Bitches Be Trypsin

BAM! uhavechlamydia wrote: »

It's more about you being an infectious risk to others

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

BAM! uhavechlamydia

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

As long as you don't mind making others sick, or worse...that's ok

Paddy Cow

Some people are seriously deluded.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

And if your "actions" kill a family member you will be ok with that too?

wassie

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

I insisted that all of my wifes & mine immediate family members were vaccinated against whooping cough at least one month before the birth of our first child, otherwise they were not permitted to visit them in hospital.


I valued my newborns life over ones right to bodily autonomy....and I'm ok with that.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if your "actions" kill a family member you will be ok with that too?

Yes, I'll be ok with that

Bitches Be Trypsin

wassie wrote: »

I insisted that all of my wifes & mine immediate family members were vaccinated against whooping cough at least one month before the birth of our first child, otherwise they were not permitted to visit them in hospital.


I valued my newborns life over ones right to bodily autonomy....and I'm ok with that.

That's totally ok, because the keyword here is choice. I would have chosen not to visit the baby. And I'm ok with that.

blanch152

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It's not the reality for the unlucky person who falls in the 0.1% reaction category though.

That modern attitude that it is all about me the individual rather than society is another reason why vaccination rates have fallen.

If 99.999999% of children are vaccinated, I can benefit from herd immunity and avoiding the risks of the vaccine. Quids in attitude, all too prevalent nowadays. All the gubbermints fault as well.

Somedaythefire

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

Yes, I'll be ok with that

So you're OK at removing other people's lives and therefore their bodily autonomy, just to "keep" your own?

Do you eat food, or drink anything? because they're removing the same body autonomy

blanch152

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

Yup, I'm all right Jack, and the rest of society can go lump it.

Igotadose

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I value my bodily autonomy and right to choice over herd immunity. I'm aware that my actions may have an effect on others. But I've decided that I'm ok with that.

1. tell all your friends, coworkers and family. You shouldn't expose them to diseases
2. Don't have children or, if you do, ensure they're vaccinated
3. As your sensitive to vaccines, you should probably sign up for a vaccination sensitivity study, your physician might be able to point you to a researcher. This way others with your condition could, in future, be able to be vaccinated without reaction.

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, I'm all right Jack, and the rest of society can go lump it.

Thanks for letting me know

Seriously though, it’s a double edge sword if people are going to argue that we should respect individuals freedom of choice in areas where they personally agree with the individuals choices, and argue that the State should prohibit people from making individual choices in areas where that person doesn’t agree that they should have to respect an individuals freedom of choice.

Sounds to me like they want to make it all about themselves, while condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing.

Bitches Be Trypsin

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, I'm all right Jack, and the rest of society can go lump it.

Who's Jack?

Brian?

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

It's why I personally refuse any further vaccination. My life has been dramatically altered due to a vaccination, I would rather take my chances. And if I die, so be it!

And what about if you infect a young baby or person that can’t be vaccinated? You’re being selfish.

Bitches Be Trypsin

Brian? wrote: »

And what about if you infect a young baby or person that can’t be vaccinated? You’re being selfish.

I know I'm selfish. I'm happy to be selfish.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seriously though, it’s a double edge sword if people are going to argue that we should respect individuals freedom of choice in areas where they personally agree with the individuals choices, and argue that the State should prohibit people from making individual choices in areas where that person doesn’t agree that they should have to respect an individuals freedom of choice.

Sounds to me like they want to make it all about themselves, while condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing.

It's not like for like though as these things need to be taken on a case by case basis. Exercising bodily autonomy by not getting vaccinated puts other people at risk. Whereas other cases of bodily autonomy like abortion do not pose a public health hazard etc.

You could only really compare different bodily autonomy arguments where the end result would be largely the same, but that would not be the case here.

1641

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for letting me know

Seriously though, it’s a double edge sword if people are going to argue that we should respect individuals freedom of choice in areas where they personally agree with the individuals choices, and argue that the State should prohibit people from making individual choices in areas where that person doesn’t agree that they should have to respect an individuals freedom of choice.

Sounds to me like they want to make it all about themselves, while condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing.

Sorry, coming late to this so sorry if the point has been made.



I could accept your choice provide you accepted that your freedom has responsibilities and consequences. The state should enforce these or, at least, enable them to be enforced.

Examples, unvaxed kids should not be eligible for state schools or subsidised preschools. Employers should be free to refuse unvaxed job applicants. And if you or yours spread any of the relevant illnesses to vulnerabe others you should be considered legally liable through negligence.
Freedom does not come without responsibility for one's actions.

BAM! uhavechlamydia

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I know I'm selfish. I'm happy to be selfish.

I just hope you don't catch something that will affect your life as badly as mine

Brian?

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I know I'm selfish. I'm happy to be selfish.

Ok. So you’re selfish and amoral. Congratulations, you’re a horrible person.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

Yes, I'll be ok with that

You should seek professional help.

GreeBo

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

I know I'm selfish. I'm happy to be selfish.

I'd be interested to see how you would feel about someone infecting your children or your parents. Even more interested if that person was you.

One eyed Jack

mzungu wrote: »

It's not like for like though as these things need to be taken on a case by case basis. Exercising bodily autonomy by not getting vaccinated puts other people at risk. Whereas other cases of bodily autonomy like abortion do not pose a public health hazard etc.

You could only really compare different bodily autonomy arguments where the end result would be largely the same, but that would not be the case here.

I’m looking at the issue of vaccine hesitancy from a political and social perspective though as opposed to a medical and scientific perspective. It’s inarguable that vaccine programmes do of course increase the general health among populations, and have been shown to do so throughout history.

But we’re now at a point in Western society at least where there are more people who have the capacity to be more selfish than previous generations, precisely due to better health, education and economic circumstances. There are more and more people questioning the ethics of vaccination programmes. They’re not arguing the science, they’re arguing the ethics, and I think that’s where scientists and medical professionals are simply talking over people’s heads. Their condemnation of people who are hesitant towards vaccines is about as effective as a virus trying to penetrate herd immunity. If I may stretch a rather ironic metaphor - people have become immune to condemnation because it simply doesn’t map to a reality where due to social media, they find that they’re not alone in their hesitancy. This gives them power they didn’t have before to be able to refuse vaccination, and be congratulated and validated for their personal choices for their own children. I hadn’t thought of equating the argument with abortion, but rather with parents raising children who are trans. Abortion is far less controversial (now there’s something I never thought I’d hear myself saying! :pac:).

We don’t force parents to vaccinate their children here in Ireland and I think it would be a terrible road to go down, as I think it would have the opposite of the intended effect given how people have much more resources available to them than before, so the threat of excluding their children from institutes of education which espouse a philosophy they don’t agree with in the first place isn’t likely to have any impact upon any attempt to increase the numbers of people who vaccinate their children. They now have opportunities and supports available to them like homeschooling for example, effectively neutralising the threat of social exclusion.

At this stage even the WHO acknowledges that there isn’t one simple explanation for vaccine hesitancy such as any influence that could be attributed to Wakefield being the sole or even the major factor. There are many contributing factors, founded more in the realms of politics and culture, than any hesitancy based upon medicine and science -

Addressing vaccine hesitancy


In short, IMO, we need to come up with new ways to tackle diseases in societies which are now more concerned with promoting individualism than collectivism. Herd immunity simply isn’t as effective in preventing the spread of disease as it once was in a society where ostracism is no longer a fear that can be held over people’s heads.

GreeBo

batgoat

If people don't vaccinate their children for non medical reasons. Then I'd favour schools rejecting on that basis. Plenty of creches already do.

BAM! uhavechlamydia

batgoat wrote: »

If people don't vaccinate their children for non medical reasons. Then I'd favour schools rejecting on that basis. Plenty of creches already do.

Could you run into the religious lunatics at this point?

Martina1991

One eyed Jack wrote:

We don’t force parents to vaccinate their children here in Ireland and I think it would be a terrible road to go down, as I think it would have the opposite of the intended effect given how people have much more resources available to them than before, so the threat of excluding their children from institutes of education which espouse a philosophy they don’t agree with in the first place isn’t likely to have any impact upon any attempt to increase the numbers of people who vaccinate their children. They now have opportunities and supports available to them like homeschooling for example, effectively neutralising the threat of social exclusion.

The intended effect is to prevent contagious disease. Parents preventing their children from being vaccinated have the opposite intent. Science will trump economical and political views because they are not facts.

They can pay through the nose and home school all they want for their children that may live to the ripe old age of puberty.

Children are not possesions. They are human beings who put their trust into their parents to look after them and prevent them from harm.

Not vaccinating your children goes against the knowledge, experience and advice of countless hours of research and study all over the world.